Prudence v Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EWHC 96 (KB).

Andrew Roy KC appeared for Michelle Prudence and Fleur Charlton in these personal injury/clinical claims crossover claims. Andrew was instructed by David Marshall and Katie Charlton of Anthony Gold.

This was an appeal heard by Jefford J against a refusal of Master Thornett to grant summary judgment on part of the claims.

The claimants were employed as midwives at the Aveta Birth Unit in Cheltenham, a midwife-led unit suitable only for low-risk births. On 14 May 2020 they were required to assist in the emergency ambulance transfer of a critically ill newborn, Baby Margot, to Gloucester Royal Hospital. During the high-speed journey they attempted resuscitation. Baby Margot died three days later.

Both claimants developed post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of this incident, bringing their midwifery careers to an end. Each claims damages of over two million pounds.

The claimants’ case is that (1) the defendant breached its employer’s duty of care by exposing them to risk of physical injury in the form of a high-speed ambulance journey during which they were unrestrained due to the need to carry out resuscitation; (2) they are therefore entitled to compensation for psychiatric injury as primary victims.

The claimants applied for summary judgment on the issue of whether their being involved in the traumatic transfer was a result of the defendant’s failures to transfer Baby Margot’s mother earlier i.e. the clinical negligence issue.

Master Thornett found that the defendant had no prospect of successfully defending this issue, holding that there should have been an obstetric referral by no later than 0550 as opposed to around 1300 as was in fact the case. He nevertheless refused to enter summary judgment. He did so on the basis that (1) it was possible that an emergency transfer involving the claimants might have occurred in any event; and (2) there were other issues with which this particular issue had a complex interaction such as the interrelationship between the admitted clinical negligence in the context of the mother and baby’s treatment, questions as to timing and need for emergency transfer, and the extent to which such needs required some or all of the claimants’ engagement in the ambulance.

Jefford J held that the Master was wrong. Having found that the defence on this issue had no real prospect of success, there was no basis to find that there was any other compelling reason for that issue to be decided at trial. She was critical of the Master for speculating in the defendant’s favour in respect of causation issues which formed no part of the defendant’s pleaded case and which were not supported by any evidence. The claimants were therefore entitled to summary judgment.

The trial of the claims is listed for eight days in December 2026.

Click here for the full judgment.